The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

You've obviously never served.

you're obviously wrong again.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

You've obviously never served.

you're obviously wrong again.

No, I'm definitely right. As always.

you keep on thinking that.

[aidan80 9]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I don't think that generality holds up too well in the context of social services. Fire services are free, but we don't burn our houses down to take advantage of emergency response. Police services are free, but we don't walk down dark alleys at night to get our free access to filing police reports. I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't think the analogy holds.

Not totally true it isn't free but it is a "sweet deal" compared to the current system! Fire/Police and where available EMS is not free. In the area where we live at least, I can't speak for everywhere.. they are paid for by taxes that we pay to either the City or County depending on which we live in. EMS in this place is a run by a private for profit company meaning we get sick/in an accident and need transported.. we get a bill from EMS. The same is not true for Fire or Police they won't bill us but we do pay for it one way or another and if you're somehow not paying.. someone else is paying for it.

But back on topic.. I agree 110% National Health Care is the way to go! Just stick the equivalent of VAT on everything say 15% - 18% and hide it so people don't see themselves paying for it... Bring in a flat tax so if you make X amount of money Y amount is pulled from your cheque before you ever get to see it.. no hiding from the government and no more not paying your taxes!!.. No more deductions no more filing and sending ####### into the IRS.. in fact I think they'd be downsizing the IRS!!!

[Danno 1,228]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I don't think that generality holds up too well in the context of social services. Fire services are free, but we don't burn our houses down to take advantage of emergency response. Police services are free, but we don't walk down dark alleys at night to get our free access to filing police reports. I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't think the analogy holds.

What you are suggesting is that I and others are against things such as emergency services or....

enforcement of laws.

All these services perform a mutually beneficial service so a community might (or might not) choose to fund them.

Healthcare as it dreamed about is neither emergency nor a circumstance which directly impacts the rights or liberty of others.... unless you are talking about communicable type illnesses which

would hold a mutually beneficial aid to the general public.

Actually you could find "real examples" of existing big Govt... to justify More big Govt.

Care to take another swing at it?

[HAL 9000 96]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I don't think that generality holds up too well in the context of social services. Fire services are free, but we don't burn our houses down to take advantage of emergency response. Police services are free, but we don't walk down dark alleys at night to get our free access to filing police reports. I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't think the analogy holds.

Not totally true it isn't free but it is a "sweet deal" compared to the current system! Fire/Police and where available EMS is not free. In the area where we live at least, I can't speak for everywhere.. they are paid for by taxes that we pay to either the City or County depending on which we live in. EMS in this place is a run by a private for profit company meaning we get sick/in an accident and need transported.. we get a bill from EMS. The same is not true for Fire or Police they won't bill us but we do pay for it one way or another and if you're somehow not paying.. someone else is paying for it.

But back on topic.. I agree 110% National Health Care is the way to go! Just stick the equivalent of VAT on everything say 15% - 18% and hide it so people don't see themselves paying for it... Bring in a flat tax so if you make X amount of money Y amount is pulled from your cheque before you ever get to see it.. no hiding from the government and no more not paying your taxes!!.. No more deductions no more filing and sending ####### into the IRS.. in fact I think they'd be downsizing the IRS!!!

Interesting second paragraph. Could you imagine many of our neo-con posters realizing they've been frolicking about a flat rate VAT all this time and then seeing it go into a solid NHS here with less overhead costs than the private mess we currently have?

Amazing...

[HAL 9000 96]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I don't think that generality holds up too well in the context of social services. Fire services are free, but we don't burn our houses down to take advantage of emergency response. Police services are free, but we don't walk down dark alleys at night to get our free access to filing police reports. I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't think the analogy holds.

What you are suggesting is that I and others are against things such as emergency services or....

enforcement of laws.

All these services perform a mutually beneficial service so a community might (or might not) choose to fund them.

Healthcare as it dreamed about is neither emergency nor a circumstance which directly impacts the rights or liberty of others.... unless you are talking about communicable type illnesses which

would hold a mutually beneficial aid to the general public.

Actually you could find "real examples" of existing big Govt... to justify More big Govt.

Care to take another swing at it?

Crime prevention, fire fighting, et al, do not occur on a community-wide basis. Is it not the case where 911 response is actually pretty specific in location and instance? Hence, it is just as singularly beneficial as, say, healthcare. And ironically, tied into a community context makes it much cheaper in the long run for all services involved since many emergency services provided come because of health conditions.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't...

[HAL 9000 96]

Well said, mox. I think Danno can get the message appropriately.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

you keep on thinking that.

Okay then. In the meantime, until you've actually served I would thank you to stop hating on our troops. They keep pinkos like you safe in your bed at night.

nowhere did i state or imply any hate for the troops. keep on trying though, mox. it's amusing me.

[Danno 1,228]

Another thought;

I read yesterday that about 1/3 of healthcare is involved with Govt right now.

Between medicare/cade, the VA, military, Govt employees etc.

Why is it they don't start with that group of millions right there and lets see how they do in say ten years time.

If it is cheaper and better, everyone will want to get on board.

[HAL 9000 96]

Another thought;

I read yesterday that about 1/3 of healthcare is involved with Govt right now.

Between medicare/cade, the VA, military, Govt employees etc.

Why is it they don't start with that group of millions right there and lets see how they do in say ten years time.

If it is cheaper and better, everyone will want to get on board.

1/3 of health care? Not sure what that means.

But if you want to fractionate it to some 'total' expenditures vs providers analysis try remembering that these services are what they are because those services are already 'paid for.' What exactly is there to start? Are you saying their coverage sucks?

Of course- you could compare it to actual cost of services, but then your argument would swing back since costs in this country are exorbitant and more involved in overhead and artificial costs rather than services per se.

[Tahoma 2,298]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I'm quite sure the vast majority of people don't look so longingly at social healthcare because they get to be the one to pay more.

Every single person wants to pay a minimum in payment and be covered for everything.

By the same token, the Right-wing does not want the Govt to start paying everyones mortgage either... if the lefties passed that law, I am sure people would like it too much to stop it as well

If the question is: will our lower natures allow us to push the cost of medical attention onto others to pay?

See we are not even talking about setting up some "Extreme medical conditions" coverage law... n,n,noooo, we want a whole big program we can all ride on.

How is your ride gonna get paid for?

Could one of you -search engine wizards- find out the average profit per year for a healthcare insurance company, I thick we will see, if these companies worked "at-cost" not much would change.

One of the main themes of your posting seems to be the increase in cost to you of a government-run single-payer health care system. I respect that argument. I understand not wanting to pay any more than you already pay for your health care delivery. What I don't understand is your lack of faith in the ingenuity and ability of this country to do things as well, or better, than other countries. All it takes is a look around at all of the other western industrialized countries, and you will discover that they not only have better health care delivery, but it is also less expensive than ours.

I believe this great country could do things better than those countries. We have the advantage of being able to look at their health care systems and choosing the features of those systems which would work for us. I would like to think that you would support such a single-payer plan, in principle, if you felt assured that it would cost you the same (or less), and your benefits would not change.

Right now, government-sponsored health care in this country is approaching 50% of all health care. It is not as big of a jump to a single-payer system as you may think it is. And please do not harbor the illusion that you do not already pay for those who have no health care plan. I believe it has already been mentioned somewhere in this thread...but it bears repeating: when the uninsured finally get sick enough to go to the emergency room, the cost of their care is largely shouldered by you and me...at emergency room prices. A bit of inexpensive preventive care for them would save a lot of money. Another well-known cost savings associated with single-payer systems is their decreased paperwork and overhead. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I work for a Fortune 100 company. I deal with a few Fortune 500 companies. After having seen how these companies operate (including mine), I can assure you that all large corporations are not more efficient than all government programs. Private or public...let's not paint everything with a broad brush. I believe that if we put our minds to it, we could create a health care system that is the envy of the world. Personally, I would not mind paying a bit more for world-class health care for everyone.

Lastly, it needs to be pointed out that, under the current system, anyone with health insurance, no matter how good their policy is, can run out of coverage. All it takes is one catastrophic accident, illness, or disease. It happens to families every day in this country. Everything they spent years working for is gone. We can change that if we want to.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Want my pay-pal? I could really use some help!

I would if I didn't know that you'd spend it all on booze. Saw you the other day...

At least you're honest.

Isnt this a pic of one of the poor ppl you "CARE" so much about? A perfect illustration of a hypocrit!

[AlHayatZween 2]

I'm quite sure the vast majority of people don't look so longingly at social healthcare because they get to be the one to pay more. Every single person wants to pay a minimum in payment and be covered for everything.

i see Dan's point regarding the above. it is hard to convince a larger part of the population that "universal health care" is actually a very good and smart investment...

whenever the topic comes up for discussion, i used to hear a lot of resistance to universal health care from friends and relatives... what they don't realize is that Medicare is socialized health care... we already have it! and you and i are already paying for it... in addition to Medicaid, in addition to Social Security, which may or may not be there by the time we retire... and then all the other services we pay through our taxes.

but the thing that is the most scary and what a lot of anti-universal coverage folks don't realize... is that anybody can get screwed in our current healthcare system. even with the best coverage, even if you've worked your entire life, have great savings, etc... you can still find yourself in a situation where you won't be covered and be faced with exorbitant medical fees... (same as the lady in the article).

it's quite frightening.

[Danno 1,228]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I'm quite sure the vast majority of people don't look so longingly at social healthcare because they get to be the one to pay more.

Every single person wants to pay a minimum in payment and be covered for everything.

By the same token, the Right-wing does not want the Govt to start paying everyones mortgage either... if the lefties passed that law, I am sure people would like it too much to stop it as well

If the question is: will our lower natures allow us to push the cost of medical attention onto others to pay?

See we are not even talking about setting up some "Extreme medical conditions" coverage law... n,n,noooo, we want a whole big program we can all ride on.

How is your ride gonna get paid for?

Could one of you -search engine wizards- find out the average profit per year for a healthcare insurance company, I thick we will see, if these companies worked "at-cost" not much would change.

One of the main themes of your posting seems to be the increase in cost to you of a government-run single-payer health care system. I respect that argument. I understand not wanting to pay any more than you already pay for your health care delivery. What I don't understand is your lack of faith in the ingenuity and ability of this country to do things as well, or better, than other countries. All it takes is a look around at all of the other western industrialized countries, and you will discover that they not only have better health care delivery, but it is also less expensive than ours.

I believe this great country could do things better than those countries. We have the advantage of being able to look at their health care systems and choosing the features of those systems which would work for us. I would like to think that you would support such a single-payer plan, in principle, if you felt assured that it would cost you the same (or less), and your benefits would not change.

Right now, government-sponsored health care in this country is approaching 50% of all health care. It is not as big of a jump to a single-payer system as you may think it is. And please do not harbor the illusion that you do not already pay for those who have no health care plan. I believe it has already been mentioned somewhere in this thread...but it bears repeating: when the uninsured finally get sick enough to go to the emergency room, the cost of their care is largely shouldered by you and me...at emergency room prices. A bit of inexpensive preventive care for them would save a lot of money. Another well-known cost savings associated with single-payer systems is their decreased paperwork and overhead. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I work for a Fortune 100 company. I deal with a few Fortune 500 companies. After having seen how these companies operate (including mine), I can assure you that all large corporations are not more efficient than all government programs. Private or public...let's not paint everything with a broad brush. I believe that if we put our minds to it, we could create a health care system that is the envy of the world. Personally, I would not mind paying a bit more for world-class health care for everyone.

Lastly, it needs to be pointed out that, under the current system, anyone with health insurance, no matter how good their policy is, can run out of coverage. All it takes is one catastrophic accident, illness, or disease. It happens to families every day in this country. Everything they spent years working for is gone. We can change that if we want to.

Good thoughtful reply.

We would be a lot closer in agreement if your use of the term "country" and "Government" were not interchangeable. I do believe our "Country" could develop a better system but I see little evidence that politicians who cannot even manage to run their senate cafeteria at a profit will somehow do better with your healthcare.

(I'm serious)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0801765_pf.html

Many people theorize, that one of the reasons that Healthcare is so expensive right now is because the govt is such a huge customer to the system... and they have over paid for services so often that it has driven the cost up for all of us.

I believe the key is to get the free-market forces back into practice, right now what we have are huge cartels. To exchange privately run cartels for politically run cartels will be suicide.

[T and M 1]

I will agree with the premise of this threads title.

"The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much"

Any time people can get used to getting something free.. or even a sweet deal, they tend to not want to give it up.... well, Duh!

I'm quite sure the vast majority of people don't look so longingly at social healthcare because they get to be the one to pay more.

Every single person wants to pay a minimum in payment and be covered for everything.

By the same token, the Right-wing does not want the Govt to start paying everyones mortgage either... if the lefties passed that law, I am sure people would like it too much to stop it as well

If the question is: will our lower natures allow us to push the cost of medical attention onto others to pay?

See we are not even talking about setting up some "Extreme medical conditions" coverage law... n,n,noooo, we want a whole big program we can all ride on.

How is your ride gonna get paid for?

Could one of you -search engine wizards- find out the average profit per year for a healthcare insurance company, I thick we will see, if these companies worked "at-cost" not much would change.

One of the main themes of your posting seems to be the increase in cost to you of a government-run single-payer health care system. I respect that argument. I understand not wanting to pay any more than you already pay for your health care delivery. What I don't understand is your lack of faith in the ingenuity and ability of this country to do things as well, or better, than other countries. All it takes is a look around at all of the other western industrialized countries, and you will discover that they not only have better health care delivery, but it is also less expensive than ours.

I believe this great country could do things better than those countries. We have the advantage of being able to look at their health care systems and choosing the features of those systems which would work for us. I would like to think that you would support such a single-payer plan, in principle, if you felt assured that it would cost you the same (or less), and your benefits would not change.

Right now, government-sponsored health care in this country is approaching 50% of all health care. It is not as big of a jump to a single-payer system as you may think it is. And please do not harbor the illusion that you do not already pay for those who have no health care plan. I believe it has already been mentioned somewhere in this thread...but it bears repeating: when the uninsured finally get sick enough to go to the emergency room, the cost of their care is largely shouldered by you and me...at emergency room prices. A bit of inexpensive preventive care for them would save a lot of money. Another well-known cost savings associated with single-payer systems is their decreased paperwork and overhead. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I work for a Fortune 100 company. I deal with a few Fortune 500 companies. After having seen how these companies operate (including mine), I can assure you that all large corporations are not more efficient than all government programs. Private or public...let's not paint everything with a broad brush. I believe that if we put our minds to it, we could create a health care system that is the envy of the world. Personally, I would not mind paying a bit more for world-class health care for everyone.

Lastly, it needs to be pointed out that, under the current system, anyone with health insurance, no matter how good their policy is, can run out of coverage. All it takes is one catastrophic accident, illness, or disease. It happens to families every day in this country. Everything they spent years working for is gone. We can change that if we want to.

Good thoughtful reply.

We would be a lot closer in agreement if your use of the term "country" and "Government" were not interchangeable. I do believe our "Country" could develop a better system but I see little evidence that politicians who cannot even manage to run their senate cafeteria at a profit will somehow do better with your healthcare.

(I'm serious)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0801765_pf.html

Many people theorize, that one of the reasons that Healthcare is so expensive right now is because the govt is such a huge customer to the system... and they have over paid for services so often that it has driven the cost up for all of us.

I believe the key is to get the free-market forces back into practice, right now what we have are huge cartels. To exchange privately run cartels for politically run cartels will be suicide.

A private system. Oh my oh my. Something for the dark ages certainly.

So you go to a doctor and he takes your money. Doctors compete for your business, so they try to make you feel like you are getting your money's worth. They order unnecessary tests (for which the labs give them kick backs) and they make you feel like you are very sick and you have to come right back to them the following week. Some doctors don't play this game, but even then you still have to check up on everything they tell you since they are completely independent and don't have to answer to any higher authority. If I have a horrible disease I would want five or six of these independent, artistic geniuses. For the other 99% of my heath care needs I want nationalized, standardized care so that I am sure I am receiving just what I need and nothing more, and that I am not receiving extra just because the doctor wants to make an extra dime or because I look like a cash cow. (When we are less wealthy - like during our studies or when we are between jobs or when we are starting a new company or when we become deathly ill - we have to be concerned about receiving just what we need and nothing LESS, despite the fact that we are the furthest thing from a cash cow during these periods of our life.)

A private system seems extra silly unless there is some form of universal insurance that everyone can access. Insurance exists so that catastrophes don't lead to bankruptcy. Security and peace of mind is generally thought of as a good thing. Private health care - with no universally available insurance - makes about as much sense to me as private security (police). What if police officers had to collect their salary just from people who had been robbed! It's sounds ridiculous, but that's exactly what a privatized health care system would be like. (And kind of like our current system, at least for the half of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured.)